BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 654
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 3, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 654 (Leno and Padilla) - As Amended: June 26, 2013
Policy Committee: ElectionsVote:5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
The bill requires the title and summary of a proposed state
initiative or referendum or a proposed recall petition, if
circulated in a county subject to language requirements of the
federal Voting Rights Act (VRA), to be translated into the
applicable languages for that county. Specifically, this bill:
1)Establishes a process whereby the proponents are to, in
advance, provide the AG or SOS, as applicable, a list of those
counties subject to the VRA language requirements where the
proponents intend to circulate the petition.
2)Requires the state Attorney General (AG), in the case of an
initiative or referendum title and summary, or the Secretary
of State (SOS), in the case of a recall petition, to prepare
translations in each applicable language, but only for those
petitions that will be circulated pursuant to a list submitted
by the proponents per (1).
3)Requires the circulator of a petition in one of the covered
counties to attach the translated title and summary to the
petition and to make it available to each person solicited in
a particular language to sign the petition.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Annual General Fund costs of about $130,000 to the AG for one
position and for translation services, based on estimated
costs of about $390 per measure to translate into nine
languages.
2)The SOS estimates costs of about $4,000 per petition for
SB 654
Page 2
translation of recall petitions into nine languages. The
number of recalls attempted over the past 25 years has
averaged 3.2, with a high of 17 and several years with none.
In most years, the SOS's total costs for this activity would
be very minor, but could exceed $50,000 if more than 12
petitions were submitted and designated by the proponents for
circulation.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . Current law requires the SOS to translate all
qualified ballot titles and summary of initiatives, referenda,
and recalls for the state voter pamphlet. This bill requires
that a translation of the title and summary of proposed
measures that will be circulated for qualification in counties
covered under the VRA. Proponents of SB 654 (voting rights and
civil rights groups) argue that limited English-proficient
voters are left out of the process of determining which
measures qualify for the ballot.
2)Practical Application of the Bill's Requirements . In total, 28
of the state's 58 counties are required under the VRA to
provide voting materials in at least one language other than
English, and eight counties are required to provide these
materials in one other language in addition to English and
Spanish. Los Angeles County is required to provide voting
materials in nine languages besides English, and since
proponents of a statewide measure would likely need to
circulate a petition in the largest county, every proposal
likely would need to be translated into those nine languages.
3)VRA and the Supreme Court . Sections 203 and 4(f)(4) of the VRA
require that when a covered state or political subdivision
"[p]rovides registration or voting notices, forms,
instructions, assistance, or other materials or information
relating to the electoral process, including ballots, it shall
provide them in the language of the applicable minority group
as well as in the English language." Twenty-seven of the
state's counties fall under Section 203 and three counties
fall under Section 4(f)(4), though two of these counties are
under both sections.
Last week's U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding the VRA did
not involve Section 203 and therefore will not impact the 27
counties under that section with respect to language
SB 654
Page 3
assistance. It is unclear at this time what the impact of the
court's decision will be on the one county (Yuba) that falls
solely under Section 4(f)(4).
4)Prior Legislation . In 2012, SB 1233 (Padilla), a substantially
similar bill, was vetoed, with the Governor arguing that while
well-intentioned, the bill would "add substantial burdens to
the petition process without commensurate benefit. I would
also note that the vast majority of initiatives submitted to
the Attorney General's Office never get to the circulation
stage."
In an attempt to address the Governor's concern, SB 654 would
only require translation for those petitions that proponent
affirmatively indicate an intent to circulate in the affected
counties.
Analysis Prepared by : Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081